John Walton: Interpreting the Creation Story
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 апр 2015
- seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
Download the PDF study guide:
store.seedbed.com/products/gen...
The church has always had a dynamic relationship with science. While some of the earliest church fathers allowed for interpretive license when it came to biblical texts, later representatives of the church were rather firm in their objections to new scientific theories and their implications for biblical interpretation. Nonetheless, the earliest innovators in modern science, including Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, were committed Christians. They believed that their Christian faith provided fertile ground for exploring the natural world. The question that remains for the church then, is how appropriate texts that on the surface appear to teach a particular account of creation. Does science become subservient to a theological text?
Wow everything that Tim Mackie tells about "saved space" and Dr. Craig's "mythohistory" lines up with this "home story". This is great stuff.
Good summary of the paradigm needed to read the origin stories in the Bible. Dr. Walton's "Genesis is Ancient Cosmology" is really great. The summary is "The Lost World of Genesis One." Temple cosmology explains so much of what God's plan has always been and continues to be regarding the Kingdom of God.
Wow it's so crazy and sad how a large percentage of these comments didn't even come close to grasping the message in this video
I first heard about John Walton through Francis Collins who regards Walton’s view highly. So I started reading Wharton’s books. You can’t digest his explanation through a 7 minute video. I agree with Francis Collins (Head of NIH) that Walton provides the best explanation on the difficult events in the Old Testament.
Science proves GOD, because the creation is in order and can be measured showing design.
Indeed
Interesting new thoughts.
science is the most elementary level of meaning, so things belong to higher stages cannot be explained by science
Its definitely an interesting way to understand Genesis1. The ancients wouldn't have thought of it from a scientific standpoint. Ok. But neither is it a parable, a figurative story to communicate some truth. It can be both a real story with 24 hour days and a mature creation. The 7 day creation story (24 hour days) parallels our 7 days of the week. These 7 days may not be the important thing, but it doesnt mean they aren't 24 hour days.
It doesn't mean they are 24 hours either. We only base one day as 24 hours based on the Earth rotating once on its axis. Why assume God is talking about that?
Hitchens_Razor Well, a great deal of passages use the word in Hebrew for a day often as a 24 hr period. The other reason was the language of “evening the morning the next day.” Another reason would be the age of Adam conflicting with the time of those days. If they were millions of years or just thousands, Adam was created day 6, saw day 7, and lived beyond that for a time. If it was long periods of time it would conflict with Adams age. But then some take Genesis in different ways.
i think the expression "and there was evening and morning, and the second day" is pretty obvious and simple as to the fact that it is a literal day. after all, nobody uses morning or evening to deacribe any other period of time.
@@andromeda1903 I agree. The days are literal. I now understand verses 1-2 as a time prior to day one where the heavens and earth were made and day one was the start of God bringing order to it. I think this is called the gap theory.
@@Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture BINGO! yes!
we can`t say the ENTIRE universe is only 6000 years old. we wouldn`t even see starlight.
👊✌
Genesis is history.
He's not denying Genisis is history. There are different ways to talk about history, like in his example of the building of a house vs the ordering of a home. Both are history but one tells a much better story (a true story).
This guy is great .
me like the video.....very well done
Gen 1 is building account and Gen 2 is home story. Don't consider science (man's understanding!) as a measure on how to understand the world the Lord created - take His understanding and open your eyes!
What god give jezus and moses, the wonders,miracle or gift ,the indonesian java people know about it and also have it to.
How much latitude does God have when He authored the first two chapters of Genesis? Does He plant seed ideas that would transcend space and time? As with Gen. 3:15, readers later in time would appreciate more depth of meaning than the original readers. The bruising of the heel is really literal and not figurative. Human scholarship tend to minimize divine authorship.
Even though angels can fly, couldn't they also walk up and down ziggurat-like stairs? On Judgment Day, would you stop Jesus from physically stepping on the head of Satan because He is taking the Bible too literally?
There are indeed abuses on both ends of the spectrum of "it couldn't have been" (symbolism) and "it must have been" (literalism). Modern bible scholarship, in order to gain academic respectability, tend to minimize the awe that comes with divine authorship. @@josephpchajek2685
I thought seedbed was better than this. If you want to promote old earth creationism, I think your wrong, but do it through the literary framework interpretation instead of whatever this is. At least literary framework interpretation is something that is used elsewhere in the Bible, book of Revelation (kind of).
Hey this isn’t about old earth creationism, this is moreso an intro to temple theology.
Temple theology is a really really interesting facet through which we can view the biblical narrative and I think it hits “closer to home” about what we’re supposed to extract from the genesis narrative.
This is an over simplified explain action from Walton. If you read his book The Lost World of Genesis One, he breaks Genesis 1 down with an in-depth theological framework that really gets you thinking.
I wish I had a dollar for every person I've talked to who absolutely finds Walton's views of Genesis way 'off the mark.' Many have complained his presuppositions are weak, dubious and highly debatable. He appears to be trying to add metaphysical philosophy to biblical theology and the mix is a disaster! His 'Lost' books are just that; lost in a mire of confusion and contradiction.
So: The key to understanding Genesis is not to actually read the words but rather create a story in your own mind and then make the words fit your preconception? I’m always reminded of the observation with videos like this: ‘if god were real there would be no need for apologists for everything would be absolutely clear, absolutely all of the time to all people. Anything less is simply playing favourites’.
Not really. Think of Plato's Cave. The guy tells people they're not seeing reality but a pale imitation. The people think he's loopy but we know he's seen real daylight outside the cave. They're unaware of the daylight so he tries to tell them, but they cannot even entertain the idea. But it doesnt make the sun any less real and true. The light is there, it's just up to us whether or not we wish to look for it.
@Caratacus Not sure why you feel the need to mention Muslims there but okay.
Love the video, thank you for your contribution to theology, linguistics, and understanding of the ancient world where and when this book was written.
My comments is more to your language of science and theology. I understand theology to be a science and would characterize the Genesis story as reflecting theological origins, but not true biological or cosmological origins.
I believe our language perpetuates a false (Cartesian?) split between the disciplines and we should not stipulate theology as different from and therefore not science.
Thoughts?
How did the world get here from your perspective
If his analogy of his own home story reflected what we have here I would be very surprised. Would he have told people things that actually happened or pretended to people that he had created it a different way? I suspect he would have been factual.
What we have here in Gen 1-3 addresses both the issue of how the world got here and the theological ones. One of those is fundamental to the Gospel. Death and sin began with Adam. The Gospel is presented as the undoing of that.
How would that work with evolution? Death was very much at work in the evolution hypothesis. Suffering was very evident.
I cannot see that secular science has anything to offer the believer but to remove the foundation of his faith.
There are other ways to view the evidence that are consistent with Genesis 1 and which can be supported by science.
If you asked Moses “was there death before sin?” I can only imagine a quizzical look on his face and he would say “of course not”. I think Jesus would answer the same way and the apostle Paul has explicitly said that there was no death before sin in (Romans 5).
The theory of evolution is, as the name says, a theory. That means it withstood every critical attack against it (and, believe me, the attacks from Answers in Genesis and such don't cut any serious wood). The theory of evolution explains all phenomena in biology and without it, what we observe in biology is nonsensical. Calling evolution a hypothesis is nothing short of ridiculous.
So, either the Bible has it wrong, or we have been reading the Bible in the wrong way. Every other explanation defies all common sense.
Why would God tell Adam and Eve to subdue creation before the fall if everything was in perfect order before the fall happened? Genesis depicts God saying creation at that point was "very good" but not perfect. They do not mean the same thing. Death is necessary for both animal and plant life to flourish.
What was the purpose of the Tree of Life if Adam and Eve were already going to live forever before the fall?
In Isaiah it talks about people living long lives and dying peacefully and it doesn't say it's a bad thing they die this way.
Adam and Eve were not like the resurrected Jesus (or like Christ's followers will be someday). There's no indication they were able to walk through material objects or appear in different places, yet still eat physical food like the risen Lord.
There is no indication the Fall brought about animal and vegetation death. And with the humans it is only clear that it brought about a spiritual death. God told Adam "in the day that you eat of the fruit you will surely die." Adam physically lived until he was 930, but the very day of the fall experienced shame and separation from God.
@@capturedquestsmusicstories7788 and who said that God was supposed to create and form the world around our common sense ?
@@capturedquestsmusicstories7788 NOPE. Evolutionists are wrong. Evolution never happened. It is a made-up story. Man's attempt at finding an answer outside of God, outside of the supernatural. Some men just can't stand God. By the way, the creationists do a good job at refuting evolution.
In Genesis 1 God is specking to us Mankind saying He created this Place/Universe & Earth to exist for us Mankind. "And God Said He made The Earth for was Without (FORM & VOID) for Man on earth this mean God created the Earth (TO BE FORM). For we can see God created a process of (Time, Growth, Development of Change) on earth & of ALL Things on earth called Evolution God made exist & existed on Earth. So God is Not saying in Genesis 1 He created this earth in 1 to 7 days. For God is specking to Early Mankind on earth (How to Measure on earth) by teaching Mankind (WHAT A DAY IS). For teaches Man How to count days in Name Number Order of 1 to 7 days & now Mankind can Measure Time by 1 to 7 days. So God tell HIS-STORY to Mankind What Things you see I God made was told (CHRONOLOIGALLY) to Man in 1 to 7 days the Time Mankind can Measure Time by then. For God know More Name Numbers days More Numbers comes then Shall MATH & More to Mankind for was God in Genesis 1 teaching early Mankind (WHAT A DAY IS). For is the Correct interpretation of Genesis 1.
You mentioned Genesis not being a ‘science book.’ That’s true, but what the Bible says in the realm of science isn’t false (inerrancy). Also, I’m not sure it’s fair to toss out a literal 7 day creation because “Genesis is not a science book.” Help me understand more, please.
You've got that backwards. It's not fair to fabricate a literal 7 days because it's not relevant to the intent of the writing.
Please, is John Walton a fundamentalist bible literalist, or is he a liberal academic speaking in metaphorical terms? I'm just not quite getting it. Please help me with this. I may be a little slow.
I've never met anyone with a higher view of Scripture than Dr. Walton. He's also not afraid to follow it wherever he goes. I ate breakfast with 5 days a week for 2 years and can attest to his love for Jesus and the Church. For something very simple, profound, great for teaching kids (honestly, great for understanding Scripture for anyone), and a chance to see how orthodox He is, get his book "The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Bible Stories from the Bible. I use it ever week.
He definitely does not qualify as a fundamentalist bible literalist. What makes me conclude that John Walton is actually a liberal academic speaking in metaphorical terms is that he clearly does not accept the Mosaic authorship Genesis and like a liberal Theologian e clearly accepts late authorship other Pentateuch and other books in the Old Testament. He does not come right out and say this but you can see it in the words he uses. For example, Several times in this video he refers to the author of Genesis without ever referring to him as Moses. He is subtle about it but he clearly does not believe did the Bible was written by whom and when it is traditionally held to have been written. History of Genesis is nothing but another compromise to force the Bible to fit the atheistic mythology being misrepresented the science. Do this he's basically equating the biblical account of creation with the creation myths of Israel's neighbors.
Only two choices? How about person attempting to make sense out of an ancient story in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
@@ChuckCreagerJr Yes, John Walton cannot be trusted on this issue as he is saying that Genesis cannot be trusted. He is telling us that it doesn't mean what it says. Many theologians reject his teachings.
Literalists are just crazy!
There the reason why the holy Bible lost it's respect it deserves and I'm saying that as a Muslim
@@theguyver4934 why would it deserve respect or the Quran?
@@VaughnMalecki - Because these books give guidance/light and understanding to people
@@theguyver4934 that's what they want to you to believe, those who control you. They are disgusting books that dull your consciousness... and your conscience as they are a playbook to immorality.
What a lot of dancing around in order to fit in with the modern changing ethics and morality. the claims of Genesis are very clear as to what it says and means. it doesn't go against science since, God Himself created how everything in science is to work. There is no reason to dance around to fit in with society's whims.
The home and house story illustration is a poor excuse or mask for JW’s unbelief. God didn’t ask the Israelites “do you want to hear the house story or the home story?” The story was 100% the choice of the Storyteller. And if God said He did it in 6 days, then it’s 6 days. Stop trying to outsmart God, or ascribe deception to God or accommodate atheists. It’s the devil who sows doubt… “did God really mean 6 days? Believe God or the liar from the beginning? Calling John Walton to repentance and true faith.
False dilemma.
I am a scientist (in the field of acoustics and radio electronics). There are two things I know:
1. Properly understood, the Bible is the best science book ever published.
2. This guy is full of you-know-what.
You're a flat earther?
The only flat earth is in Kansas.
@@Species-rj9si But Revelation says angels stood on the four corners of the earth, so doesn't that make the earth flat? ... just saying :)
@@jimmme5880 The orginal Koine language says "far reaches." Blame the English language.
@@jimmme5880 You are defining the word earth.
Gen 1:10. (KJV) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
The default biblical usage the word earth is not a reference to the planet, but a reference to dry land. Once you realize this fact all flat-earth interpretations disappear. For example, the continents (dry land earth) literally sit on granite foundations that go deep into the planet and you can see literal pillars in dryland caves.
Even the four corners mentioned in revelation could be literal corners physical or political.
The universe expanding is a guess
Science has made one big guess about everything, human and universe related and everything within it. The word of God is not a guess.
Even the most popular preachers don't know anything about the firmament
@@jdubs325 God's word may not be a guess, but that does not mean your interpretation is correct.
If so, it is a VERY highly educated guess.
Such a nonsense
Man, you missed the boat!
So simplistic. Not enough.
Where do you put the line between facts and fantasy in the Bible?
How do you know where to put the line?
That line has been moving with sciences discovering how the nature works out, and revealing the lots of nonsense in the Bible.
@@patrickmcdonnell2067 😂🤣
As I said, Bible believers have issues locating the line between facts and fantasy.
@@carlose5751 Western thought is just so disconnected from everything.
We don’t even know how to think properly anymore because the systems around us control most of our thought.
Wrong. Early Church Fathers have been interpreting Genesis figuratively since at least 200AD. Stop making things up.
...on the contrary, the more we discover about the natural world, the stage anti-Bible activist is getting smaller.
@@david52875 Early Church Fathers treated Genesis as history. We do not need to adopt millions of years to explain canyon formations, the fossil record and polystrate fossil are a right pain in the backside for those who adhere to Lyell's uniformitarian model.
Ugh.
Young earth creationist here. Sola scriptura.
Amen!!!!
ruclips.net/video/3mamkl-eo9Y/видео.html Q. E. D.
Sola scripture isn't even biblical. The Bible talks about God's creation revealing who he is as well as his Word.
@@joshuaWEC The creation story tells us what the Creator did and the timeframe in which He did His work. The Bible in its entirety tells us who God is leading up to the expressed image of the Godhead in bodily form.
Ex-materialist evolutionist here. Yep, the plain reading of tge creation account of Genesis is the most logical approach. We do not need Charles Lyell's uniformitarian model as it is seriously flawed.
Load of crap
Frank. On what theological basis to you make your claim?
Dynamic Love Ministries Actually, Dr. William Lane Craig made a quite through critique of John Walton in his Defenders class on creation which can be viewed on RUclips.
@@dynamicloveministries334 "On what theological basis to you make your claim?"
The fact that it requires a god That is too incompetent to make sure that his Word is worded In a manner that will not be confusing to anybody but the original listeners. It requires God who had no concern that His Word with accurately translated so as to avoid such a huge mistake of thinking that a functional dedication is the physical creation.
@@ChuckCreagerJr you really sound confusing? I think you should have worded it better or am I just to stubborn to see what you are saying although there is no theology in your answer
@@dynamicloveministries334 Theology is "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." and yes what I did say contain theology because it deals with the implications of Walton's interpretation of Genesis 1 for the nature of God.
I don't see how my comments were confusing. According to Walton's interpretation of Genesis 1, the standard literal interpretation and it's resulting young Earth position are gross misunderstanding text. Furthermore because of the young Earth interpretation is found throughout the entire church age with no one teaching in Earth more than 10,000 years old until atheist started making such claims in the late 1700s. As a result according to Walton Genesis was misunderstood throughout the entire church age to indicate a young Earth and that we needed to help of God-hating atheists to correct the mistake.
Now being omniscient, God would have known that's such a gross misunderstanding would have occurred and not only did he not take steps in the original text to prevent it, but he did not intervene in the translation process of even the most widely used English translation to prevent its perpetuation. The point is that for Walton's interpretation of Genesis 1 to be correct, God would not only have to have allowed the wording of the original Hebrew to have been such that it would have caused such a misunderstanding but he would have had to also done *absolutely nothing* to correct it before atheists started pushing an old Earth and universe, and common descend evolution. This would require a god that is incompetent because he could have prevented it with very minor modifications to the text.
The war is between the fantasy of Bible defenders versus reason/reality/facts.
How is the Bible fantasy?
Another creation myth!